Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. Although indictment simultaneously described object as "a dangerous weapon" and "a firearm", creating hybrid charge, there was no uncertainty that Defendant was being charged per Section 18-2(a)(2), as robbery was alleged to have involved a firearm, which is dangerous per se. Indictment apprised Defendant of precise offense charged with adequate specificity to prepare defense. Public Act 95-688 revived sentencing enhancement for armed robbery, and thus court properly imposed 15-year enhancement on armed robbery conviction. (SCHMIDT and O'BRIEN, concurring.)